Pithy intro, must work on that. But this is a blog it’s meant to entertain (somewhat) and inform (kind of). Not to mention I am a completely random individual so don’t judge. Anyway I digress, and that’s before I start.

Flavour Danger!

In case you missed it on twitter today, our mutual frenemy has penned another e-cig article. He has written a few, here, here, here, here, here, and his most recent one here. Unfortunately, the term investigative journalism seems to have escaped his notice as the vast majority of what he writes, and how he writes it comes across as decidedly negative. That is of course complete at odds with his claims of ‘balance’.

The current article, when I first read it had none of the counter arguments that he claims balance for.

Squeezing in words like “crammed” is unnecessarily sensationalist. It is very much like saying that the tube is crammed with people. Over exaggeration. It would have been better to say:

“The flavourings used in some e-cigarettes may contain some potentially dangerous chemicals”

Just to keep with the context of the study being reported. The overall sample size of this study was tiny in comparison to the number of e-liquids available. What is even more astounding, is that there is no mention in this article that the liquids being tested were produced by the tobacco industry.Whilst the tobacco companies do make electronic cigarettes, they are not a major player in that market space.

” ‘Vapers’ have almost 8,000 flavour to choose from including menthol, cherry, coffee and bubble gum, the study found.”

What is it with the ‘Vapers’? Almost as though stuffing the label inside some ‘ ‘ makes the label almost laughable. Kind of like being called Big Vapour I suppose. Maybe it is just me being a little sensitive to being labelled. But either way, there are lots of flavours available so why choose bubble gum ? Why not cotton candy, Shade, Dragons Blood, Yoda Snot or Hedons Bite ? Only one reason I can think of.

Think of the cheeeldren!

Interestingly, the article has been ‘updated’ to say :

If vapers inhale 5 millilitres of e-liquid a day, researchers claimed they would be exposed to twice the recommended occupational exposure limits of benzaldehyde and vanillin.

Instead of the ‘liquid tobacco’ phrase he initially used. But he only changed that after being prodded by a fellow advocate on Twitter. Where is the investigative journalism ? This person has written a fair number of articles on e-cigs and still cannot get it right. Maybe his copy and paste buttons were broken?

Oh Portland, you devil

Of course, it had to have originated from Portland. The very same bunch that gave us the Formaldehyde fuck up. Which by the way, is slightly positive as it does prove that when used correctly no formaldehyde is produced. Whilst it is true that many e-liquids may contain ingredients that may have a negative impact when inhaled, there is no evidence. So what does our dear journo talk about next?

A survey about “e-cig access” claiming that 10-11 year olds were trying e-cigarettes at “an alarming rate”. Oh myy.

This screenshot was initially the last section of the article when I first read it this afternoon. Sounding the “significant concerns” bells yet again, but in relation to the survey and not the flavour study.

“harm reduction arguments do not hold where e-cigarettes are used by young people who would not otherwise have been using tobacco”

This is probably the only statement I’m inclined to agree with. Under 18s should not be using either tobacco or e-cigarettes. However, if a kid wants to try something they’ll try something. If it is ‘illicit’ in their eyes (as in age restricted), they’ll most likely want to try it even more. I was like that when I was younger. Hell, I smoked my first tobacco cigarette at 15 and started buying them at 17.

“Some experts fear e-cigs are a health timebomb”

This statement is quite frankly, bullshit. Seems our journo has been listening to the balderdash emanating from California.

Some balance at last

This little piece has obviously been added after the article published, as it definitely was not there when I checked this afternoon but it is there now. I snagged the screenshots at about half past four this afternoon, and by six thirty this bit appeared. It’s almost an afterthought. That is, until you get to the inevitable poll at the end of the article.

WTF?

If the question had been “Are e-cigs safer than traditional tobacco cigarettes”, or even “are e-cigs safer than cigs” I would have voted yes, because they simply are safer than traditional tobacco cigarettes. No advocate, or vaper should ever consider vaping to be “safe”. Nothing on this planet is “safe”. Vaping is safer than smoking. The trouble is, with articles like this using unnecessary language to heighten the minimal risks and taking them out of context, the militant ANTZ are trumpeting that e-cigs are as bad as normal cigarettes.

It happens, time and time again. Studies get rushed into the media with little or misleading information, which in turn generates scaremongering headlines further fueling the debate which takes the focus of what is needed away.

In the name of the Seven, if you don’t know about e-cigarettes, don’t fucking write about them. Publicity is good, but all vaping seems to get is negative, the good stuff gets ignored.